|
On January 14 2016 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 01:58 SoSexy wrote:On January 14 2016 01:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 14 2016 00:53 SoSexy wrote:
Why can't american just use all the 24 hours? Is it so difficult to say 14.40 instead than 2.40 pm? way more probable to make a mistake considering pm/am (which only differ in one letter) o.o Same reason why we refuse to use metric: + Show Spoiler + XD At least I can recognize changing all industrial bolts size etc would be a pain, but time? since there is '12 pm' you would already have double digit...hmm If you really want to be accurate we should have a standard earth time and stop thinking of things as being morning or evening. So instead of having EU time, US time, SEA time, we just have one designated time and 5:00 is night time in some places and early dawn in others.
Well, we kinda have a "standard earth time" already, that's GMT. However it would be really (like even more than the am/pm shit) counterintuitive to go from one day to another in the middle of the day in some places of the world.
|
United States44198 Posts
National debt works by issuing bonds. Bonds are a promise to give someone a set amount of money on a set date. So just as I could auction off a promise to give the holder $20 on February 1st and have people bid on it based on their trust of me to honour that promise, their belief that I would have the money and their ability to afford the promise, so can a state. Rather than an actual auction because it's a commonly traded commodity there is already a general idea of how much a given promise is worth although obviously it fluctuates as available money to invest dries up and the faith in repayment goes down (among other factors).
I could buy a US government treasury bond (or a part of one) and so could you. Or we could invest in bond funds which is where a third party buys the bonds and we buy shares of the ownership from them. So yes, people, companies, countries, anyone can buy bonds. It's not about power, it's simply buying a product. I have an iphone but I that doesn't make me more powerful than Apple, buying a US government bond is simply buying a product that they were selling, a promissory note.
Issuing bonds doesn't necessarily, or even often, fuck a country over or the future population. Remember bonds are denominated in the domestic currency of the country and the country has the power to issue more as needed. While issuing new currency is inflationary inflation can often be a good thing, devaluing your currency makes your exports more competitive by increasing the buying power of your trading partners which stimulates industry while also functioning effectively as an external tariff which encourages local consumption. In cases like Greece where the sovereign nation does not have a sovereign currency it's different but those are the minority of cases.
Furthermore countries can often borrow at extremely low to negative real interest rates. Foreign government bonds are a hedge against instability in your own currency. A South African who bought US government bonds in 2010 would have doubled his money when denominated in SA Rand, even though the interest rate was negligible. The high faith in government repayment of bonds allows them to be issued at interest rates close to or below the rate of inflation which means the purchasing power of the money they received for the bond was actually higher to the purchasing power of the money repaid for the issuing government.
Governments could absolutely commit to repaying their bonds. Take Norway, Norway is a huge owner of foreign bonds, the country operates at over a trillion dollars in surplus money invested (North Sea oil money) which they use to rake in sweet, sweet interest so they can all have pensions. That's totally a thing a country can do. But for most countries the question is "why would I repay this debt when the terms I negotiated on it are so good?". Repayment is possible, albeit in some cases not without economic contraction, but it's not like running a credit card balance for a family. Nations are not people and national debt is not necessarily a problem.
|
On January 14 2016 03:07 KwarK wrote:
National debt works by issuing bonds. Bonds are a promise to give someone a set amount of money on a set date. So just as I could auction off a promise to give the holder $20 on February 1st and have people bid on it based on their trust of me to honour that promise, their belief that I would have the money and their ability to afford the promise, so can a state. Rather than an actual auction because it's a commonly traded commodity there is already a general idea of how much a given promise is worth although obviously it fluctuates as available money to invest dries up and the faith in repayment goes down (among other factors).
I could buy a US government treasury bond (or a part of one) and so could you. Or we could invest in bond funds which is where a third party buys the bonds and we buy shares of the ownership from them. So yes, people, companies, countries, anyone can buy bonds. It's not about power, it's simply buying a product. I have an iphone but I that doesn't make me more powerful than Apple, buying a US government bond is simply buying a product that they were selling, a promissory note.
Issuing bonds doesn't necessarily, or even often, fuck a country over or the future population. Remember bonds are denominated in the domestic currency of the country and the country has the power to issue more as needed. While issuing new currency is inflationary inflation can often be a good thing, devaluing your currency makes your exports more competitive by increasing the buying power of your trading partners which stimulates industry while also functioning effectively as an external tariff which encourages local consumption. In cases like Greece where the sovereign nation does not have a sovereign currency it's different but those are the minority of cases.
Furthermore countries can often borrow at extremely low to negative real interest rates. Foreign government bonds are a hedge against instability in your own currency. A South African who bought US government bonds in 2010 would have doubled his money when denominated in SA Rand, even though the interest rate was negligible. The high faith in government repayment of bonds allows them to be issued at interest rates close to or below the rate of inflation which means the purchasing power of the money they received for the bond was actually higher to the purchasing power of the money repaid for the issuing government.
Governments could absolutely commit to repaying their bonds. Take Norway, Norway is a huge owner of foreign bonds, the country operates at over a trillion dollars in surplus money invested (North Sea oil money) which they use to rake in sweet, sweet interest so they can all have pensions. That's totally a thing a country can do. But for most countries the question is "why would I repay this debt when the terms I negotiated on it are so good?". Repayment is possible, albeit in some cases not without economic contraction, but it's not like running a credit card balance for a family. Nations are not people and national debt is not necessarily a problem.
They should add perks to the T bond program, Frequent Flyer miles or something. Really sell the US public on contributing to the debt effort, what do you think.
|
United States44198 Posts
With the proper utilization of credit cards an individual can issue bonds at a subinflation interest rate and get frequent flyer miles. I actually did this last night.
|
On January 14 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:
With the proper utilization of credit cards an individual can issue bonds at a subinflation interest rate and get frequent flyer miles. I actually did this last night.
What did you go with, AMEX? I got that Delta card too.
|
On January 14 2016 03:07 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +National debt works by issuing bonds. Bonds are a promise to give someone a set amount of money on a set date. So just as I could auction off a promise to give the holder $20 on February 1st and have people bid on it based on their trust of me to honour that promise, their belief that I would have the money and their ability to afford the promise, so can a state. Rather than an actual auction because it's a commonly traded commodity there is already a general idea of how much a given promise is worth although obviously it fluctuates as available money to invest dries up and the faith in repayment goes down (among other factors).
I could buy a US government treasury bond (or a part of one) and so could you. Or we could invest in bond funds which is where a third party buys the bonds and we buy shares of the ownership from them. So yes, people, companies, countries, anyone can buy bonds. It's not about power, it's simply buying a product. I have an iphone but I that doesn't make me more powerful than Apple, buying a US government bond is simply buying a product that they were selling, a promissory note.
Issuing bonds doesn't necessarily, or even often, fuck a country over or the future population. Remember bonds are denominated in the domestic currency of the country and the country has the power to issue more as needed. While issuing new currency is inflationary inflation can often be a good thing, devaluing your currency makes your exports more competitive by increasing the buying power of your trading partners which stimulates industry while also functioning effectively as an external tariff which encourages local consumption. In cases like Greece where the sovereign nation does not have a sovereign currency it's different but those are the minority of cases.
Furthermore countries can often borrow at extremely low to negative real interest rates. Foreign government bonds are a hedge against instability in your own currency. A South African who bought US government bonds in 2010 would have doubled his money when denominated in SA Rand, even though the interest rate was negligible. The high faith in government repayment of bonds allows them to be issued at interest rates close to or below the rate of inflation which means the purchasing power of the money they received for the bond was actually higher to the purchasing power of the money repaid for the issuing government.
Governments could absolutely commit to repaying their bonds. Take Norway, Norway is a huge owner of foreign bonds, the country operates at over a trillion dollars in surplus money invested (North Sea oil money) which they use to rake in sweet, sweet interest so they can all have pensions. That's totally a thing a country can do. But for most countries the question is "why would I repay this debt when the terms I negotiated on it are so good?". Repayment is possible, albeit in some cases not without economic contraction, but it's not like running a credit card balance for a family. Nations are not people and national debt is not necessarily a problem.
I have alot of difficulty understanding all this economy talk, so I'm going to be asking a few more questions based on the answer you gave if that's okay:
While issuing new currency is inflationary inflation can often be a good thing, devaluing your currency makes your exports more competitive by increasing the buying power of your trading partners which stimulates industry while also functioning effectively as an external tariff which encourages local consumption.
So because the money is worth less, so are the products in that country and trading is easier? But how does paying more for certain products locally, even though salaries haven't necessarily been changed help the local consumption? Or does all this change happen instantanuously and automaticlaly in the entire nation? Do firms abuse this, if this is not the case? Is that legal?
why would I repay this debt when the terms I negotiated on it are so good?
Is also something I have difficulty with understanding. You start your answer off with saying a certain country says they'll pay, let's say, 1billion dollar by the end of the year, and negotiate this with a certain bank (does my example still hold up? lol). The interest rate is very favourable for the country. So they don't really care if they pay it back in that year, because the interest is so ridiculously low? The bank can't fine them? The set date is just something symbolic? And if you buy a bond, do you set the interest rate or how is that regulated by both parties?
Studying something else at the moment and do not really have the time to start wikiholing into this monster of a subject, because since I'm such an economic scrub, it'll take all the basics and more probably to understand all that stuff. Really appreciate it if you keep this going 
|
United States44198 Posts
On January 14 2016 03:41 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 03:07 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +National debt works by issuing bonds. Bonds are a promise to give someone a set amount of money on a set date. So just as I could auction off a promise to give the holder $20 on February 1st and have people bid on it based on their trust of me to honour that promise, their belief that I would have the money and their ability to afford the promise, so can a state. Rather than an actual auction because it's a commonly traded commodity there is already a general idea of how much a given promise is worth although obviously it fluctuates as available money to invest dries up and the faith in repayment goes down (among other factors).
I could buy a US government treasury bond (or a part of one) and so could you. Or we could invest in bond funds which is where a third party buys the bonds and we buy shares of the ownership from them. So yes, people, companies, countries, anyone can buy bonds. It's not about power, it's simply buying a product. I have an iphone but I that doesn't make me more powerful than Apple, buying a US government bond is simply buying a product that they were selling, a promissory note.
Issuing bonds doesn't necessarily, or even often, fuck a country over or the future population. Remember bonds are denominated in the domestic currency of the country and the country has the power to issue more as needed. While issuing new currency is inflationary inflation can often be a good thing, devaluing your currency makes your exports more competitive by increasing the buying power of your trading partners which stimulates industry while also functioning effectively as an external tariff which encourages local consumption. In cases like Greece where the sovereign nation does not have a sovereign currency it's different but those are the minority of cases.
Furthermore countries can often borrow at extremely low to negative real interest rates. Foreign government bonds are a hedge against instability in your own currency. A South African who bought US government bonds in 2010 would have doubled his money when denominated in SA Rand, even though the interest rate was negligible. The high faith in government repayment of bonds allows them to be issued at interest rates close to or below the rate of inflation which means the purchasing power of the money they received for the bond was actually higher to the purchasing power of the money repaid for the issuing government.
Governments could absolutely commit to repaying their bonds. Take Norway, Norway is a huge owner of foreign bonds, the country operates at over a trillion dollars in surplus money invested (North Sea oil money) which they use to rake in sweet, sweet interest so they can all have pensions. That's totally a thing a country can do. But for most countries the question is "why would I repay this debt when the terms I negotiated on it are so good?". Repayment is possible, albeit in some cases not without economic contraction, but it's not like running a credit card balance for a family. Nations are not people and national debt is not necessarily a problem. I have alot of difficulty understanding all this economy talk, so I'm going to be asking a few more questions based on the answer you gave if that's okay: While issuing new currency is inflationary inflation can often be a good thing, devaluing your currency makes your exports more competitive by increasing the buying power of your trading partners which stimulates industry while also functioning effectively as an external tariff which encourages local consumption.So because the money is worth less, so are the products in that country and trading is easier? But how does paying more for certain products locally, even though salaries haven't necessarily been changed help the local consumption? Or does all this change happen instantanuously and automaticlaly in the entire nation? Do firms abuse this, if this is not the case? Is that legal? why would I repay this debt when the terms I negotiated on it are so good?Is also something I have difficulty with understanding. You start your answer off with saying a certain country says they'll pay, let's say, 1billion dollar by the end of the year, and negotiate this with a certain bank (does my example still hold up? lol). The interest rate is very favourable for the country. So they don't really care if they pay it back in that year, because the interest is so ridiculously low? The bank can't fine them? The set date is just something symbolic? And if you buy a bond, do you set the interest rate or how is that regulated by both parties? Studying something else at the moment and do not really have the time to start wikiholing into this monster of a subject, because since I'm such an economic scrub, it'll take all the basics and more probably to understand all that stuff. Really appreciate it if you keep this going
If the value of the Euro doubled vs the USD then the cost of anything made in the Eurozone to an American would also double because he'd need twice as many dollars to pay the cost of production. When he walked around the store and compared the EU goods to the US goods he'd be far more likely to buy the American goods because they'd be more competitively priced. Meanwhile in Belgium the cost of imported US goods has suddenly halved because your Euros are so valuable you only need half as many to pay for the US workers and goods. You therefore buy twice as many American things like the good consumer you are.
They make the payments on the debt. They're not just not paying them. The bank isn't getting scammed. The bank is happy with the arrangement and if it ceases to be happy with it it'll just sell the bond to someone else.
The set date isn't really important due to the ability of the country to issue new bonds. You issue new bonds as the old ones mature. It only really becomes important if the value of the bonds changes hugely in that time. Greece couldn't just keep rolling the debt forwards because the faith in repayment was broken so the interest rates on the new bonds would have been far more than those on the older ones.
|
United States44198 Posts
|
Interesting choice, you and my brother should have a chat about how you jimmy around your cash. He is a financial analyst at a hedge fund and the ins and outs of his shit is insane.
|
United States44198 Posts
On January 14 2016 04:01 ThomasjServo wrote:Interesting choice, you and my brother should have a chat about how you jimmy around your cash. He is a financial analyst at a hedge fund and the ins and outs of his shit is insane.
I'm just an average eve online player who realized that it's just as easy to play games with real money as it is with fake.
|
On January 14 2016 04:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 04:01 ThomasjServo wrote:On January 14 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2016 03:30 ThomasjServo wrote:On January 14 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:
With the proper utilization of credit cards an individual can issue bonds at a subinflation interest rate and get frequent flyer miles. I actually did this last night. What did you go with, AMEX? I got that Delta card too. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/502055-fsas-and-credit-cards-are-pretty-exploitable Interesting choice, you and my brother should have a chat about how you jimmy around your cash. He is a financial analyst at a hedge fund and the ins and outs of his shit is insane. I'm just an average eve online player who realized that it's just as easy to play games with real money as it is with fake.
Eve is a gateway drug to investments and playing the market, I can think of worse things. What brought you to the states any how, which part did you move to
|
United States44198 Posts
On January 14 2016 04:19 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 04:14 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2016 04:01 ThomasjServo wrote:On January 14 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2016 03:30 ThomasjServo wrote:On January 14 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:
With the proper utilization of credit cards an individual can issue bonds at a subinflation interest rate and get frequent flyer miles. I actually did this last night. What did you go with, AMEX? I got that Delta card too. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/502055-fsas-and-credit-cards-are-pretty-exploitable Interesting choice, you and my brother should have a chat about how you jimmy around your cash. He is a financial analyst at a hedge fund and the ins and outs of his shit is insane. I'm just an average eve online player who realized that it's just as easy to play games with real money as it is with fake. Eve is a gateway drug to investments and playing the market, I can think of worse things. What brought you to the states any how, which part did you move to
New Mexico and I married the eve diplomat of a rival group who happened to be American. I play the metagame pretty hard, shortly afterwards I'd infiltrated that group and joined their leadership.
What can I say, chicks dig nerds.
|
On January 14 2016 04:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 04:19 ThomasjServo wrote:On January 14 2016 04:14 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2016 04:01 ThomasjServo wrote:On January 14 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2016 03:30 ThomasjServo wrote:On January 14 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:
With the proper utilization of credit cards an individual can issue bonds at a subinflation interest rate and get frequent flyer miles. I actually did this last night. What did you go with, AMEX? I got that Delta card too. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/502055-fsas-and-credit-cards-are-pretty-exploitable Interesting choice, you and my brother should have a chat about how you jimmy around your cash. He is a financial analyst at a hedge fund and the ins and outs of his shit is insane. I'm just an average eve online player who realized that it's just as easy to play games with real money as it is with fake. Eve is a gateway drug to investments and playing the market, I can think of worse things. What brought you to the states any how, which part did you move to New Mexico and I married the eve diplomat of a rival group who happened to be American. I play the metagame pretty hard, shortly afterwards I'd infiltrated that group and joined their leadership. What can I say, chicks dig nerds.
I've known a few couples who got hitched by way of guilds in WoW, never been a better time to be a nerd I agree. Lmk if you ever have cause to be in Minnesota, I'll buy you a drink and we can sit awkwardly at a bar talking about things we saw on TL that day.
|
How big would the powerball jackpot have to be to make a $2 bet a statistically reasonable choice?
Also with the Jackpot over 1.5 billion can't one afford to buy all 292 million combinations and still come out a winner (the only risk being splitting the prize I guess)?
|
United States44198 Posts
It wouldn't be, the problem isn't the jackpot, it's the odds. A 1% chance of winning $1,000,000 is different from a 100% chance of winning $10,000, ask any man on the street. While statistically they may be identical there is a marginal decrease in value on dollars past a certain point. 1.5b is way, way past that point.
The jackpot isn't meaningfully 1.5b. It's "enough" money, whatever enough is for that person and that number is way lower than 1.5b. Enough divided by 292m isn't going to be anything like $2. You should keep the $2.
Regarding buying every combination, there are logistical issues on top of taxes and the risk of splitting.
|
|
|
United States44198 Posts
He doesn't adjust for the marginal value of a dollar. The difference between having $0 and $2 is far greater than the difference between having, for example, $700m and $701m.
|
On January 14 2016 05:13 KwarK wrote:
It wouldn't be, the problem isn't the jackpot, it's the odds. A 1% chance of winning $1,000,000 is different from a 100% chance of winning $10,000, ask any man on the street. While statistically they may be identical there is a marginal decrease in value on dollars past a certain point. 1.5b is way, way past that point.
The jackpot isn't meaningfully 1.5b. It's "enough" money, whatever enough is for that person and that number is way lower than 1.5b. Enough divided by 292m isn't going to be anything like $2. You should keep the $2.
Regarding buying every combination, there are logistical issues on top of taxes and the risk of splitting.
Well as long as one is in a state without a special lotto tax I think the cash payout works out to ~$700 million Every combination would cost less than $600 million but we could round up to cover some logistics.
Then there's the prizes for matching less than all of the numbers (not sure how many "winning" combinations there are that would add $1 million wins and the smaller wins also).
Seems like splitting is the big risk. So it would need to be 2-3 times larger I think to counter the odds of splitting?
|
On January 14 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote:If the value of the Euro doubled vs the USD then the cost of anything made in the Eurozone to an American would also double because ... + Show Spoiler +he'd need twice as many dollars to pay the cost of production. When he walked around the store and compared the EU goods to the US goods he'd be far more likely to buy the American goods because they'd be more competitively priced. Meanwhile in Belgium the cost of imported US goods has suddenly halved because your Euros are so valuable you only need half as many to pay for the US workers and goods. You therefore buy twice as many American things like the good consumer you are. Alright, thanks. I guess in the real world it's probably a bit more nuanced than that though, maybe not so if it's that clear cut, but it rarely is I reckon. The Euro zone must be pretty tricky to balance because each country still works with their own economy, while also accounting for the European economy, and then the world economy. A box of cereals won't cost the same in France as in Belgium (or even different parts of Belgium I think) when bought from the same supermarket chain.
They make the payments on the debt. They're not just not paying them. The bank isn't getting scammed. The bank is happy with the arrangement and if it ceases to be happy with it it'll just sell the bond to someone else.
Isn't selling, and reselling something dangerous? If money is "loaned out" without ever getting it back, why does it even matter there is a concept like this? I'm pretty sure some of the money that the US owes for example, is probably never going to be payed back, right?
The set date isn't really important due to the ability of the country to issue new bonds. You issue new bonds as the old ones mature. It only really becomes important if the value of the bonds changes hugely in that time. Greece couldn't just keep rolling the debt forwards because the faith in repayment was broken so the interest rates on the new bonds would have been far more than those on the older ones.
So to issue a new bond is basically renewing your promise to pay? (or am I interpreting this wrongly?)
Also, a folowup question. Aren't the rating bureaus that assess the economic strength of a country manipulating the economy by said ratings in a sense? I know it's kind of a tangent, but it's also somehting that's been eating at me for a while.
If you rather have I PM you about this, I'll gladly do so (don't want to make this thread into some grand economy teaching lesson)
|
United States44198 Posts
On January 14 2016 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 05:13 KwarK wrote:
It wouldn't be, the problem isn't the jackpot, it's the odds. A 1% chance of winning $1,000,000 is different from a 100% chance of winning $10,000, ask any man on the street. While statistically they may be identical there is a marginal decrease in value on dollars past a certain point. 1.5b is way, way past that point.
The jackpot isn't meaningfully 1.5b. It's "enough" money, whatever enough is for that person and that number is way lower than 1.5b. Enough divided by 292m isn't going to be anything like $2. You should keep the $2.
Regarding buying every combination, there are logistical issues on top of taxes and the risk of splitting. Well as long as one is in a state without a special lotto tax I think the cash payout works out to ~$700 million Every combination would cost less than $600 million but we could round up to cover some logistics. Then there's the prizes for matching less than all of the numbers (not sure how many "winning" combinations there are that would add $1 million wins and the smaller wins also). Seems like splitting is the big risk. So it would need to be 2-3 times larger I think to counter the odds of splitting?
Gambling winnings in the US are taxed as ordinary income which would put pretty much the entire jackpot in the 39% bracket. You'll need it to be way bigger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
